I have been wondering. Do all religious explanations of Creation of the world necessarily involve narcissism and incest? If everything comes from god, Creation is an act of incest beginning with god’s own self. Is that why Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine invoke god’s dignity in disallowing sexual conception of Christ? If logic leads to blasphemy, fuck logic, says the religious mind. Right?

We should note that the Vedas take a more interesting approach to this impasse. They take a shock-and-awe approach. (If you can’t beat them, eat them and make them a part of yourself. Hinduism’s evidently successful assimilation of diverse religious views owes a lot to this.) In Vedic literature, Prajapathi, the Creator, pushes the envelope on acceptable behavior. He is in carnal love with his own daughter (she arrives via a cut on his side). Creation starts from there.

The perversity of religion is in the choice it forces people to make. Logic, faith, incest: Choose any two. Is it any wonder why religious fanatics go crazy?

Comments

Hey, with all due respect, this is a rather simplistic interpretation of obvious parables. All abstract ideas must be embodied in some concrete language. The older the idea the more limited the range of linguistic expression available. There is more to the creation myths than meets the eye. It’s simplistic interpretation that makes for the religion of the masses.

A non-rhetorical question: is there more than one creation myth so perverse as to have the Father of Everything promptly putting an eternal curse on everything and everybody he’s just brought into being?

Shouldn’t that be “logic, faith, exogamy: chose any two”? Your statement implies that combining logic and faith *avoids* incest, while I think what you meant to say is that if you’re logical about religion, you’ll conclude the world originated through incest.